lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Remove some notrace RCU APIs
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:19:54AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 07:08:26AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 May 2019 04:14:44 -0400
> > Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > I guess the difference between the _raw_notrace and just _raw variants
> > > > is that _notrace ones do a rcu_check_sparse(). Don't we want to keep
> > > > that check?
> > >
> > > This is true.
> > >
> > > Since the users of _raw_notrace are very few, is it worth keeping this API
> > > just for sparse checking? The API naming is also confusing. I was expecting
> > > _raw_notrace to do fewer checks than _raw, instead of more. Honestly, I just
> > > want to nuke _raw_notrace as done in this series and later we can introduce a
> > > sparse checking version of _raw if need-be. The other option could be to
> > > always do sparse checking for _raw however that used to be the case and got
> > > changed in http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-afs/2016-July/001016.html
> >
> > What if we just rename _raw to _raw_nocheck, and _raw_notrace to _raw ?
>
> That would also mean changing 160 usages of _raw to _raw_nocheck in the
> kernel :-/.
>
> The tracing usage of _raw_notrace is only like 2 or 3 users. Can we just call
> rcu_check_sparse directly in the calling code for those and eliminate the APIs?
>
> I wonder what Paul thinks about the matter as well.

My thought is that it is likely that a goodly number of the current uses
of _raw should really be some form of _check, with lockdep expressions
spelled out. Not that working out what exactly those lockdep expressions
should be is necessarily a trivial undertaking. ;-)

That aside, if we are going to change the name of an API that is
used 160 places throughout the tree, we would need to have a pretty
good justification. Without such a justification, it will just look
like pointless churn to the various developers and maintainers on the
receiving end of the patches.

Thanx, Paul

> thanks, Steven!
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-25 17:51    [W:0.076 / U:1.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site